Miniaturisation -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

mydjinny

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

2nd August 2006

0 Uploads

1,185 Posts

0 Threads

#11 14 years ago

It would be for the possibility of having historic air, naval or mix air/naval coampaigns... I'm sure the devs could make use of some blur effect to make it less chunky. Seen the folliage in BF2142? Those, unlike BF2 are designed to be blurred cuz both BF2 and 2142 use lower detail for trees than 42 (Hence less RAM), me thinks. It about making new vehicles,models and statics that are in fact minature versions of the originals, that can be used by any mapper, are desgined blurry to give the illusion of simple distance over less detail.... Personally, I think it should be done. The BF engine supports the use of vehicles after all. It wont be us crossing over into Sim-mod, it would adaptation so that we can have 'larger' maps specifically for situations where detail is less important, such as when you are flying high in the air with a squadron or firing a ship's main gun at an enemy fleet that is far far off...




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#12 14 years ago

Suggested before, though the idea isn't too bad.

Things to point out though: - If anything would be scaled down the players would walk around on an unscaled (downsized minimap). Such a miniature soldier on a full scale terrain would mean that what actually is 1 meter ingame on the map looks like 2 meters. This also means that the ground (detail of ground elevations etc. and textures) are double as poor as a default map. Thus the terrain would be less smooth.

Overall this would be the same as using "scale 4" (BF2 allows your map to be scaled, so it's at scale 0,5 (extra detaile terrain yet the map is half as small as scale 1), scale 2 and scale 4. The higher the scale the larger the map but the less detail on the ground. Afterall the same heightmap of 1024x1024 pixels would be used to cover a 2048x2048 area.

This would suck if you need to shape your terrain more then a little bit and thus be best left to naval maps only. Sadly BF2's scaled maps are not without errors. :(




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#13 14 years ago

:( that's sorta a buzzkill.




mydjinny

I live on Gaming Forums

50 XP

2nd August 2006

0 Uploads

1,185 Posts

0 Threads

#14 14 years ago

Pitty... But still. I'm thinking if soley naval maps could have more advanced ships than that of mixed maps that wont be too bad. Also, what about complete air maps. Afterall, buildings would be @ long range and it wont matter how sucky they look. What would matter is the ability to bomb a good amount of buildings. For example in a complete bombing campaign, with the extra size, you'd expect bombers to be flying real high so the buildings would be nothing more than targets to the planes. It wont matter how the bricks look and they would probably not be enter-able. Its only the AA guys on the ground who would have to bear the horror of the look and even then, shouldn't they have been looking to the skies?, y'know.... Well, I guess I gotr my dev thumbs-down.... SIGH!!




  • 1
  • 2